ROTFLMAO!
Oh BS, Tex. You have not provided a single FACT, just your ex cathedra claims. . . and anecdotes you've heard.
I've presented nothing but checkable facts, Tex, providing current factual charts from known sources such as Tom's Hardware, Computerworld, and Consumers Reports, and checkable statements from the people who are actually running IT for large Apple hardware installs, such as IBM's VP in charge of their IT department. Last I checked IBM is #32 on the Fortune 500 list and they are going 100% Apple because Apple computers are MORE RELIABLE and SAVE them large amounts in IBM's IT costs, and they are willing to say so, publicly and have said so, multiple times. Do you doubt those facts?
Are you asserting those are NOT reliable sources for FACTS, Tex?
Here's another one on the IBM deployment of Apple Macs (emphasis used is mine):
IBM cuts down IT support staff w/ Mac deployment, says 5% of Mac users call help desk vs 40% for PCsDeploying Macs to employees has helped IBM significantly reduce its IT staff and cut down on time and costs, the company’s VP of Workplace-as-a-Service Fletcher Previn explained at a recent talk during the JAMF Nation User Conference (JNUC). Previn offered some insight into how offering Macs has improved efficiency for the company’s internal IT staff since IBM for the first time started offering its employees Macs as an official alternative to PCs back in May.
Previn noted that “Every Mac that we buy is making and saving IBM money,” and that “A Mac still has value three or four years down the road.” An example of the added value of using Macs versus PCs is the amount of support required. IBM has just 24 help desk staff that are supporting around 130,000 Mac and iOS devices deployed throughout the company. That’s just one support member for 5,375 employees, but Previn boasts that’s because only approximately 5% of Mac users request support compared to around 40% of its PC using employees.
Previn said that Gartner believes the optimal number of IT to employees should be 1:70. Previn noted that the average is 1:242. And IBM is currently hovering around 1:5,400. Wow!IBM originally planned to deploy around 50,000 new Macs to the company by the end of the year when it first announced the initiative back in May. At the JAMF conference it said it’s currently deploying around 1,900 Macs per week with 130,000 Apple devices already in use at the company.
A couple months back Apple and IBM announced an expanded partnership that will see it distribute and support enterprise Macs for other companies in addition to its work together to deploy and support iOS devices and software.
IBM is using JAMF’s Casper suite to deploy software to the Macs.
And here's the latest report from Rescue.com on the repair records of various computer brands' reliability:
Apple's Reliability Score is TWICE that of its nearest competitor
which has one-third Apple's U.S. market share!
Yet you say I am the one lying? You still want to say that Apple hardware breaks down more than all other hardware COMBINED? LOL! I accuse you of bald face lying.
I have been posting proof of my assertion, with SOURCES, which is not some unknown internet poster, like you, making uncheckable anecdotal claims about "20 years in a Fortune 100 company claiming 300,000 PC/MAC's" (You don't even know the correct name of Apple's computer is not an acronym). There is no way you supported any such thing as a large number of Macs among those claimed 300,000 PCs. If you even worked at one of the Fortune 100's various locations, you personally supported only a few of their PCs, and perhaps heard second hand anecdotes about supporting the Macs.
I lived and worked within 10 minutes of the World's largest Apple installed network of Macs during Apple's first twenty years and it was nowhere near 300,000. There were 2200 Macs in a mixed PC/Mac network—majority Mac—at San Joaquin Delta College during the late 1980s to early 1990s and their experience with failures was no where near what you claim. I bought several pallets of perfectly workable retired Macs, monitors, and accessories at auction from the college's surplus auctions for a non-profit charity I founded and they ran perfectly for several years post purchase. That, Tex, is an anecdote, because I am not going to take the time to research for the proof of that statement. However, I knew the head of the IT department at that college, he lived down the block from me and helped me set up a WAN to allow the charity's ten satellite locations to connect securely to the main location's Network and server data base over the phone.
I owned a business for more than 40 years which did cross platform support for both PCs and Macs for businesses and organizations, both public and private, including City, County, and State governments, (I had clients from Sacramento to Modesto to Concord). . . and I will tell you which platform had far more problems per installation. . . and it wasn't the Apple Mac. That's another anecdote. . . but it's based on actual experience.
I have provided FACTUAL data which you reject because YOU are the one living in your own reality distortion field and simply refuse to see it. There is not a single lie in what I have posted here. You just don't want it to be true.
So much for your Lying assertions that". . . Apple devices fail far more often than all other devices put together. They require more user support and are a cost burden." You made that completely untenable assertion and the facts blow you out of the water. . . and you've provided nothing factual but your unsupported anecdote to make the claim or to rebut my evidence.